A basic
proposition of the theory is that leader actions to correct any deficiencies in
the interving variables will improve group performance. A leader who fails to
recognize opportunities to deficiencies
in key intervening variables, who recognizes the opportunities but fails to
act, or who acts but is not skilled will be less than optimaly effective. An
ineffective leader may make things worse bau acting in ways that in crease
rather than decrease the deficiency in one or more intervening variables. For
example, a leader who uses coercive influence tactic may reduce subordinate
effort.
Table 6-4
summarizes possible short – term actions to deal with deficiencies in the
intervening variables. Leaders may influence group members to work faster or do
better quality work (e.g., by offering special incentives, by giving an
inspiring talk about by importance of the work, by setting challenging goals).
Leader may increase member ability to do the work (e.g., by showing them better
methods for doing the work, by clearing up confusion about who is responsible
for what). Leaders may organize and coordinate activities in a more efficient
way (e.g., by finding ways to reduce delays, duplication of offert, and wasted
effort; by matching people to tasks better; by finding better ways to use
people and resources). Leaders may obtain resources needes immediately to do
the work (e.g., onformation, personnel, equipment, materials, supplies).
Leaders may act to improve external coordination by meeting with outseders to
plan activities and resolve conflicting demand on the work unit.
The model does
not imply that there is only one optimal pattern of managerial bahevior in any
given situation. Leaders usually have some choice among intervening variables
in need of improvement, and different patterns of behavior are usuallay
possoble to correct a particular deficiency. The overall patterns of behavior
by the designated leader and other group members is more importent than any
single action. In this respect, the model similar to Stewart’s (1976) “choices” (see
Chapter 3). However, a leader whose attention is focused on interveningvariables
that are not deficient or not important will fail to improve unit performance.
Some aspects
of the situation limit a leader’s discretion in making changes and reacting to
problems. These influences are similar to Stewart’s (1976) “constraints” and
Kerse influences are similar to Stewart’s (1976) “constraints” and Kerr and
Jermier’s (1978) “neutralizers.” The extent to which a leader is capableof
doing something in the short run to improve any of the intervening variables is
limited by the leader’s position power, organizitional policeis imposed by top
management, the technology used to do
the work, and legal – contractual restrictions (e.g.,labor-management
agreements, contracts with suppliers, requirements mandated by government
agencies). Constraints may prevent a leader from rewarding or punishing
members, changing work assignments or procedures, and procuring supplies and equipments.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar